42 U.S.C. § 670: Congressional declaration of purpose; authorization of appropriations

For the purpose of enabling each State to provide, in appropriate cases, foster care and transitional independent living programs for children who otherwise would have been eligible for assistance under the State’s plan approved under part A (as such plan was in effect on June 1, 1995 ), adoption assistance for children with special needs, kinship guardianship assistance, and prevention services or programs specified in section 671(e)(1) of this title , there are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this part. The sums made available under this section shall be used for making payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary, State plans under this part. “This Act may be cited as the ‘Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000’. Under both Federal and State law, the courts play a crucial and essential role in the Nation’s child welfare system and in ensuring safety, stability, and permanence for abused and neglected children under the supervision of that system. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 ( Public Law 105–89 ; 111 Stat. 2115 ) [see Short Title of 1997 Amendment note set out under section 1305 of this title ] establishes explicitly for the first time in Federal law that a child’s health and safety must be the paramount consideration when any decision is made regarding a child in the Nation’s child welfare system. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 promotes stability and permanence for abused and neglected children by requiring timely decisionmaking in proceedings to determine whether children can safely return to their families or whether they should be moved into safe and stable adoptive homes or other permanent family arrangements outside the foster care system. To avoid unnecessary and lengthy stays in the foster care system, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 specifically requires, among other things, that States move to terminate the parental rights of the parents of those children who have been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months. While essential to protect children and to carry out the general purposes of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the accelerated timelines for the termination of parental rights and the other requirements imposed under that Act increase the pressure on the Nation’s already overburdened abuse and neglect courts. The administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the Nation’s abuse and neglect courts would be substantially improved by the acquisition and implementation of computerized case-tracking systems to identify and eliminate existing backlogs, to move abuse and neglect caseloads forward in a timely manner, and to move children into safe and stable families. Such systems could also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of such courts in meeting the purposes of the amendments made by, and provisions of, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. The administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the Nation’s abuse and neglect courts would also be improved by the identification and implementation of projects designed to eliminate the backlog of abuse and neglect cases, including the temporary hiring of additional judges, extension of court hours, and other projects designed to reduce existing caseloads. The administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the Nation’s abuse and neglect courts would be further strengthened by improving the quality and availability of training for judges, court personnel, agency attorneys, guardians ad litem, volunteers who participate in court-appointed special advocate (CASA) programs, and attorneys who represent the children and the parents of children in abuse and neglect proceedings. While recognizing that abuse and neglect courts in this country are already committed to the quality administration of justice, the performance of such courts would be even further enhanced by the development of models and educational opportunities that reinforce court projects that have already been developed, including models for case-flow procedures, case management, representation of children, automated interagency interfaces, and ‘best practices’ standards. Judges, magistrates, commissioners, and other judicial officers play a central and vital role in ensuring that proceedings in our Nation’s abuse and neglect courts are run efficiently and effectively. The performance of those individuals in such courts can only be further enhanced by training, seminars, and an ongoing opportunity to exchange ideas with their peers. Volunteers who participate in court-appointed special advocate (CASA) programs play a vital role as the eyes and ears of abuse and neglect courts in proceedings conducted by, or under the supervision of, such courts and also bring increased public scrutiny of the abuse and neglect court system. The Nation’s abuse and neglect courts would benefit from an expansion of this program to currently underserved communities. Improved computerized case-tracking systems, comprehensive training, and development of, and education on, model abuse and neglect court systems, particularly with respect to underserved areas, would significantly further the purposes of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 by reducing the average length of an abused and neglected child’s stay in foster care, improving the quality of decision-making and court services provided to children and families, and increasing the number of adoptions. that implement part B and part E of title IV of the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 670 et seq.) (including preliminary disposition of such proceedings); that determine whether a child was abused or neglected; that determine the advisability or appropriateness of placement in a family foster home, group home, or a special residential care facility; or that determine any other legal disposition of a child in the abuse and neglect court system. The term ‘agency attorney’ means an attorney or other individual, including any government attorney, district attorney, attorney general, State attorney, county attorney, city solicitor or attorney, corporation counsel, or privately retained special prosecutor, who represents the State or local agency administrating the programs under parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 670 et seq.) in a proceeding conducted by, or under the supervision of, an abuse and neglect court, including a proceeding for termination of parental rights. enabling such courts to develop and implement automated data collection and case-tracking systems for proceedings conducted by, or under the supervision of, an abuse and neglect court; encouraging the replication of such systems in abuse and neglect courts in other jurisdictions; and requiring the use of such systems to evaluate a court’s performance in implementing the requirements of parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 670 et seq.). Not less than 20 nor more than 50 grants may be awarded under this section. Not more than 2 grants authorized under this section may be awarded per State. Funds provided under a grant made under this section may only be used for the purpose of developing, implementing, or enhancing automated data collection and case-tracking systems for proceedings conducted by, or under the supervision of, an abuse and neglect court. A State court or local court may submit an application for a grant authorized under this section at such time and in such manner as the Attorney General may determine. A description of a proposed plan for the development, implementation, and maintenance of an automated data collection and case-tracking system for proceedings conducted by, or under the supervision of, an abuse and neglect court, including a proposed budget for the plan and a request for a specific funding amount. identification of relevant judges, court, and agency personnel; records of all court proceedings with regard to the abuse and neglect case, including all court findings and orders (oral and written); and relevant information about the subject child, including family information and the reason for court supervision. In the case of an application submitted by a local court, a description of how the plan to implement the proposed system was developed in consultation with related State courts, particularly with regard to a State court improvement plan funded under section 13712 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 ( 42 U.S.C. 670 note) [now 42 U.S.C. 629h ] if there is such a plan in the State. In the case of an application that is submitted by a State court, a description of how the proposed system will integrate with a State court improvement plan funded under section 13712 of such Act if there is such a plan in the State. a description of the coordination of the proposed system with other child welfare data collection systems, including the statewide automated child welfare information system (SACWIS) and the adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system (AFCARS) established pursuant to section 479 of the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. 679 ); and an assurance that such coordination will be implemented and maintained. Identification of an independent third party that will conduct ongoing evaluations of the feasibility and implementation of the plan and system and a description of the plan for conducting such evaluations. A description or identification of a proposed funding source for completion of the plan (if applicable) and maintenance of the system after the conclusion of the period for which the grant is to be awarded. An assurance that any contract entered into between the State court or local court and any other entity that is to provide services for the development, implementation, or maintenance of the system under the proposed plan will require the entity to agree to allow for replication of the services provided, the plan, and the system, and to refrain from asserting any proprietary interest in such services for purposes of allowing the plan and system to be replicated in another jurisdiction. The total number of cases that are filed in the abuse and neglect court. The number of cases assigned to each judge who presides over the abuse and neglect court. The average length of stay of children in foster care. the number of episodes of placement in foster care; the number of days placed in foster care and the type of placement (foster family home, group home, or special residential care facility); the number of days of in-home supervision; and the number of separate foster care placements. The number of adoptions, guardianships, or other permanent dispositions finalized. The number of terminations of parental rights. The number of child abuse and neglect proceedings closed that had been pending for 2 or more years. the timeliness of each stage of the proceeding from initial filing through legal finalization of a permanency plan (for both contested and uncontested hearings); the number of adjournments, delays, and continuances occurring during the proceeding, including identification of the party requesting each adjournment, delay, or continuance and the reasons given for the request; the number of courts that conduct or supervise the proceeding for the duration of the abuse and neglect case; the number of judges assigned to the proceeding for the duration of the abuse and neglect case; and the number of agency attorneys, children’s attorneys, parent’s attorneys, guardians ad litem, and volunteers participating in a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) program assigned to the proceeding during the duration of the abuse and neglect case. A description of how the proposed system will reduce the need for paper files and ensure prompt action so that cases are appropriately listed with national and regional adoption exchanges, and public and private adoption services. An assurance that the data collected in accordance with subparagraph (I) will be made available to relevant Federal, State, and local government agencies and to the public. An assurance that the proposed system is consistent with other civil and criminal information requirements of the Federal Government. An assurance that the proposed system will provide notice of timeframes required under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 ( Public Law 105–89 ; 111 Stat. 2115 ) for individual cases to ensure prompt attention and compliance with such requirements. A State court or local court awarded a grant under this section shall expend $1 for every $3 awarded under the grant to carry out the development, implementation, and maintenance of the automated data collection and case-tracking system under the proposed plan. The Attorney General may waive or modify the matching requirement described in subparagraph (A) in the case of any State court or local court that the Attorney General determines would suffer undue hardship as a result of being subject to the requirement. State court or local court expenditures required under subparagraph (A) may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or services. Only State court or local court expenditures made after a grant has been awarded under this section may be counted for purposes of determining whether the State court or local court has satisfied the matching expenditure requirement under subparagraph (A). No application for a grant authorized under this section may be approved unless the State court or local court submitting the application demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the court has provided the State, in the case of a State court, or the appropriate child welfare agency, in the case of a local court, with notice of the contents and submission of the application. The extent to which the system proposed in the application may be replicated in other jurisdictions. The extent to which the proposed system is consistent with the provisions of, and amendments made by, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 ( Public Law 105–89 ; 111 Stat. 2115 ), and parts B and E of title IV of the Social Security Act ( 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 670 et seq.). The extent to which the proposed system is feasible and likely to achieve the purposes described in subsection (a)(1). The Attorney General shall award grants under this section in a manner that results in a reasonable balance among grants awarded to State courts and grants awarded to local courts, grants awarded to courts located in urban areas and courts located in rural areas, and grants awarded in diverse geographical locations. No grant may be awarded under this section for a period of more than 5 years. Funds provided to a State court or local court under a grant awarded under this section shall remain available until expended without fiscal year limitation. a description of the ongoing results of the independent evaluation of the plan for, and implementation of, the automated data collection and case-tracking system funded under the grant; and the information described in subsection (b)(2)(I). Beginning 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act [ Oct. 17, 2000 ], and biannually thereafter until a final report is submitted in accordance with subparagraph (B), the Attorney General shall submit to Congress interim reports on the grants made under this section. Not later than 90 days after the termination of all grants awarded under this section, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a final report evaluating the automated data collection and case-tracking systems funded under such grants and identifying successful models of such systems that are suitable for replication in other jurisdictions. The Attorney General shall ensure that a copy of such final report is transmitted to the highest State court in each State. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, $10,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005. promoting the permanency goals established in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 ( Public Law 105–89 ; 111 Stat. 2115 ); and enabling such courts to reduce existing backlogs of cases pending in abuse and neglect courts, especially with respect to cases to terminate parental rights and cases in which parental rights to a child have been terminated but an adoption of the child has not yet been finalized. The barriers to achieving the permanency goals established in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 that have been identified. The size and nature of the backlogs of children awaiting termination of parental rights or finalization of adoption. The strategies the State court or local court proposes to use to reduce such backlogs and the plan and timetable for doing so. How the grant funds requested will be used to assist the implementation of the strategies described in paragraph (3). establishing night court sessions for abuse and neglect courts; hiring additional judges, magistrates, commissioners, hearing officers, referees, special masters, and other judicial personnel for such courts; hiring personnel such as clerks, administrative support staff, case managers, mediators, and attorneys for such courts; or extending the operating hours of such courts. Not less than 15 nor more than 20 grants shall be awarded under this section. Funds awarded under a grant made under this section shall remain available for expenditure by a grantee for a period not to exceed 3 years from the date of the grant award. The barriers to the permanency goals established in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 that are or have been addressed with grant funds. The nature of the backlogs of children that were pursued with grant funds. The specific strategies used to reduce such backlogs. whose parental rights have been terminated; and whose adoptions have been finalized. Any additional information that the Attorney General determines would assist jurisdictions in achieving the permanency goals established in the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. There are authorized to be appropriated for the period of fiscal years 2001 and 2002 $10,000,000 for the purpose of making grants under this section. expanding the recruitment of, and building the capacity of, court-appointed special advocate programs located in the 15 largest urban areas; developing regional, multijurisdictional court-appointed special advocate programs serving rural areas; and providing training and supervision of volunteers in court-appointed special advocate programs. Not more than 5 percent of the grant made under this subsection may be used for administrative expenditures. For purposes of administering the grant authorized under this subsection, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice shall determine whether an area is one of the 15 largest urban areas or a rural area in accordance with the practices of, and statistical information compiled by, the Bureau of the Census. There is authorized to be appropriated to make the grant authorized under this section, $5,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2001 and 2002.”